SUBJECT: TOPIC: Searches Date Made: Digest Maker:

Constitutional and Seizures February 14, 2016 Ruth F. Melicor

Law II

CASE NAME: Disini vs. Sec of Justice

PONENTE: Abad, J. Case Date: 2014-02-18
Case Summary:
The petitioners assailed the Cyber Crime Prevention Act and pointed out numerous
provisions they claimed to be unconstitutional. Those related to search and
seizures were: identity theft, real time collection of traffic data, and DOJ
empowered to restrict or block access to computer data.
Identity Theft was assailed since they claimed that it violated the right to privacy.
The court ruled however that the petitioners argument has no merit since there
can be no fundamental right for a wrongful act.
Real Time data collection was initially discussed to be reasonable since only the
data traffic would be looked into and not the contents. Furthermore, packets of
data really are sent to service providers so there is no full expectation of privacy.
However, the Court found that the wording of the provision was too broad that it
gave law enforcement limitless power that could be abused. Hence, it was declared
to be unconstitutional
DOJ empowered to restrict and block computer access with prima facie evidence
was also declared to be unconstitutional. The Court held that computer data is
property and protected by the Constitution. Thus, there needs to be a search
warrant, and this provision by empowering the DOJ, precluded judicial intervention.

Rule of Law:

Detailed Facts:
Petitioners in this case assailed the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 for being
unconstitutional and void. (RA 10175)
Numerous provisions (super dami!) were assailed, and discussed in this digest are
only those that relate to seach and seizures

WoN Sec 4(b)(3) which punishes Identity theft is void and unconstitutional NO
WoN Sec 12 ,which allows real time collection of traffic data to be collected by law
enforcement with due cause, is unconstitutional Yes
WoN Sec 19 which empowers the DOJ to restrict or block access to computer data, is
unconstitutional YES.
Holding:
The provision punishing computer-related identity theft is not
unconstitutional.
The court discussed that there are zones of privacy for each individual and such
zones are recognized and protected under our laws
The constitutional guarantees that create these zones of privacy are (1) tight
against unreasonable searches and seizures, which is the right to be left alone, and
(2) the right to privacy of communication and correspondence
To determine if such rights have been violated the Court has to look into whether a

BLOCK D 2019 1
 person has reasonable expectation of privacy. If yes, then one should look into
whether government has unreasonably intruded.
The law is not unconstitutional since there is no fundamental right to acquire
another persons data
The provision (Sec 12) on real time data collection of traffic data is
unconstitutional
Under this provision only the communications origin, route, destination, time, size
are looked into and not its content or identities.
The court discussed that privacy can be classified into two categories: (1)
decisional privacy involves the right to independence in making certain decisions,
(2) informational privacy refers to the interest in avoiding disclosure in personal
matters. It is the second right that the petitioners wish to protect
Informational privacy likewise has two aspects: (1) right not to have private
information disclosed and (2) right to live freely without surveillance and intrusion
To determine whether or not something is entitled to privacy there is a two fold
test. (1) subjective test, where one needs to have a legitimate expectation of
privacy over the matter and (2) objective test where his/her expectation of privacy
is what society may deem to be reasonable.
The Sol Gen claims that when you send information packets of data really are sent
to your service provider. Content is broken into packets which create the data. Sec
12 does not permit law enforcement to look into the content or inquire into the
identities.
ICT users are aware that when they communicate to each other, they do so thru
service providers, thus there is no reasonable belief of privacy.
However the phrase with due cause does not properly describe the purposes fo
data collection, giving law enforcement virtually limitless powers. They could
choose whatever they look into and this threatens the right of individuals to
privacy.
The provision must have been narrowed down to prevent abuse . It must be written
with definiteness to ensure respect for the rights the Constitution guarantees
The provision (Sec 19) which empowers the DOJ to restrict or block access to
computer data when there is prima facie found to be in violation of the
provisions in the law, is unconstitutional.
Computer data is personal property and are protected from unreasonable
searches and seizures. Thus, there needs to be a warrant. The DOJ cannot
substitute for a judicial search warrant
Sec 19 precludes judicial intervention and disregards jurisprudential guidelines est
to determine the validity on restrictions of speech (dangerous tendency doctrine,
balancing of interest, clear and present danger rule)
Ruling
Some provisions void (in addition to discussed above, the provision prohibiting spam
mail is void, since there is no need to restrict such, since people still may choose
whether or not to read it.) Another void provision was the one on double jeopardy since
one cannot be tried under both this law and the RPC for the same act.
Other Opinions:

BLOCK D 2019 2